I have ran a few Pathfinder games, so far, and I also used to play another popular "3.5" game. (Ya'll know the one. hehe) It seems every so many sessions I seem to see something diffrent from the last version I played. The thing I noticed, as of late, seems to lead me to belive that invisibility now works on undead and vermin as well. Am I right about this?
In the Bestiary under the undead and vermin type it says "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms)." Plus, in the Core book, under spell schools for illusions, many of the subschools say they are all mind-affecting spells but not glammer spells. Invisibility is a glammer spell, so it says under the spells description. That led me to believe that it now works versus undead and vermin.
Sorry if this question has been asked but I couldn't find anything about it when I used the search.
yes, invisibility works on undead and vermin (and for the record it did in 3.5 as well). Note that some undead, and quite a few vermin, have special sensory abilities (such as tremorsense) which let them target a creature even if they can't see it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I always giggle when I read another thread that goes:
"So they changed this in PF, huh?"
"Actually, it was like that in 3.5 too."
Just like the M10 rules changes in Magic: the Gathering a couple of years ago:
"Oh, guess I missed that change for M10."
"Actually, that's been a rule for the last 15 years."
What funny people gamers can be. ;)
Wow... Don't I feel like the boob now! For just taking the word of a DM a few years back. I just checked some older books and see you are correct. Guess that's what happens when you just take the word of the person running the game. Funny to... because I thought it sounded off at the time but the counter argument was along the lines of "Then why do they have a hide from undead spell!?" and I just kind of let it go. Now that I'm running games I like to make sure I'm playing correct. Thanks for the info!
Don't feel to bad, that argument has existed since 1e AD&D (with the invisibility to undead spell) and it was not a correct argument even back then.
For future reference that argument that the spell hide from undead precludes the use of invisibility against undead is a logical fallacy, it is a non sequitor. It is like constructing the argument that 'arsenic can be used to poison a person, there for strychnine is not poisonous to people' or even 'arsenic can be used to poison a person, there for strychnine is poisonous to people' Both are invalid arguments (even though both statements in the second one is factually true) because whether arsenic and strychnine are poisonous or not have no causal relationship to each other.
Also never feel bad to ask questions, even if they turn out to be easily answered or based upon wrong assumptions, questioning is how we learn.